Allahabad Court February 1951 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Vidyadhar Vs. Ramzan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All715
Malik, C.J.1. On August 31, 1938, a money decree was passed in favour of the applicant Vidyadhar against the opposite-parties Ramzan and Bhujang. Within the period for execution of decree, the decree-holder applied for execution. On February 12, 1942, however, the papers were consigned to the record room and thus terminated the first application for execution. On August 1, 1945, the decree-holder filed a second application for execution and in this application it was mentioned that on January 25, 1943, the judgment-debtors had paid a sum of Rs. 11/- and on February 2, 1944, another sum of Rs. 7/-. At the end of the application there was a note that the period of limitation was saved under Section 20, Indian Limitation Act. by these two payments.2. After the decree-holder had applied for execution, he evidently realized that it would be necessary for him to certify payments under Order 21, Rule 2, C. P. C., before the executing Court could take any notice of these payments. On September...
Rama Shankar Shukla Vs. Rikhab Kumar Jain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All428
ORDERP.L. Bhargava, J.1. This is an application in revision by Shri Rama Shankar Saukla, a lawyer practising before the Income-tax and Sales.tax Officers in Kanpur. 2. Shri Rikhabh Kumar filed a complaint against the applicant, on 18-6 1949, charging him with an offence, punishable under Section 420, Penal Code. It was alleged in the complaint that Shri Shukla had induced the complainant to pay him Rs. 1,100 on the assurance that he had some influence with the Income-tax Officer, Kanpur, and that he would exert that influence to secure some relief in the assessment of income-tax on the complainant; but the applicant did nothing of the kind and it was subsequently discoverd that Shri Shukla had no such influence over the Income-tax Officer. 3. The Magistrate, who took cognizance of the offence, recorded all the evidence produced in support of the prosecution and also examined Shri Shukla. Then he proceeded to hear arguments on behalf of the complainant and Shri Shukla and dismissed the ...
Ram Chandra Vs. the District Magistrate of Aligarh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All520
Sapru, J.1. This is a plaintiff's first appeal. The case as put forward by the plaintiff was that he and his ancestors had been in possession of the shop in suit for a continuous period of 60 or 70 years, that they bad been carrying on 'kaserat' business in that shop, that defendant 2, who is the Rationing Officer of the town of Hathras was somehow improperly prevailed upon the defendant 3 to allot the shop in dispute to him under the United Provinces (Temporary) Accommodation Requisition Act (Act XXv [25] of 1947), herein-after called the Act, on a representation to him that the shop was vacant and that no alternative accommodation had been provided to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's case was that it was not competent to the authority concerned to eject him, that he was protected by Act XXV [25] of 1947 and that the ejectment order was likely to affecthis business somewhat seriously in his old age. On these allegations, the relief claimed by the plaintiff was that the Court might be pl...
Maharaj Bali and anr. Vs. Mt. Tirath Dei and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All608
1. This revision application under Section 115, Civil P. C. is directed against an order of the Civil Judge of Gonda dated 6-12-1914, rejecting the application of the applicants for leave to sue in forma pauperis.2. It appears that the applicants claimed title to succeed as reversioners to the property of one Sheo Dayal upon the death of his daughter Ganesha in 1932. The case put forward in the plaint was that Sheo Dayal died in 1865 leaving two widows Maharani & Rani. The former died in 1888 & the latter in 1908. Upon the death of Rani, Ganesha succeeded to the property which she held till her death in 1932. The defts. to thesuit were some of the descendants of Ganesha & some transferees from her. The suit was brought in 1944. An application under Order XXXIII, Rule 1,Civil P.C. was made on the ground that the applicants were paupers & were unable to pay the court-fee which, according to the valuation fixed in the plaint, came to a sum of Rs. 2, 143/12. The value of the property set o...
Shib Charan Lal Vs. Lachmi NaraIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1951
Reported in: AIR1951All613
ORDERBrij Mohan Lall, J. 1. This is a revn. by a deft, against a decree of the learned Judge, Small Cause Ct., Aligarh. 2. The appct. was in the employ of the opposite-party & used to work as his agent for selling locks & other brass wares. He used to make collections from customers on behalf of the opposite-party. Accounts were settled between the parties on 31-3-1947 & a sum of Rs. 3097-2-6 was found due to the opposite-party from the appct. An entry was made to that effect in the opposite-party's account book & that entry was signed by the appct. Even after that date the appct. continued to make collections from the opposite-party's customers &, according to his version, also continued to make remittances to the opposite-party. 3. He collected a sum of Rs. 300 on behalf of the opposite-party at Cuttak &Raja; Mundry & this sum he did not remit to the opposite-party. The result was that the latter, filed a criminal complaint for embezzlement against the appct. in respect of this sum o...
Hafiz Mohammad Ismail Vs. Shafaat HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1951
Reported in: AIR1951All614
ORDERMootham, J.1. This is an appln. for revn. of an order rejecting an appln. under S. 5, Limitation Act. 2. The appct. filed a suit for the ejectment of the opposite parties from certain property & for damages. The suit was in part decreed & in part dismissed, & against that decree the appct. appealed. The last day for the filing of the appeal was 4-1-1950, but the appeal was in fact filed two days later, namely on 6th January. It was then accompanied by an appln. under Section 5, Indian Limitation Act, supported by an affidavit, praying that the appeal be admitted on the ground of the appct.'s illness. That appln. was on the following day, the 7th January, summarily dismissed by the learned Dist. J. in chambers without hearing the appct. or his counsel. No order was, however, made dismissing the appeal. 3. Mr. H. P. Gupta, who appears for the opposite parties, raises the preliminary objection that no revn. lies as there is no 'ease decided' within the meaning of Section 115, C. P. C...
Mohd. Mushtaq Vs. Mt. Baqridan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All413
Ghulam Hasan, J. 1. This appeal was filed on 10-7-1948, against the judgment and decree of the civil Judge, Bahraich dated 9-2-1948, dismissing the plaintiffs suit. An application was made (civil Misc. Appln. No. 883 of 1960) on 16-8-1950, by the respondents challenging the maintainability of the appeal in this Court and praying that the preliminary point about jurisdiction should be decided first in order to save time and cost to parties The ground of the application is that the plaintiff's suit was ore for partition of three pies share out of sixteen annas. The entire property was valued in the plaint at Rs. 23,000 and the plaintiff's share at Rs. 359-6-0. In view of the valuation put by the plaintiff on his claim for partition the appeal, according to the respondents' contention, lay to the District Judge and not to this Court. Reliance is placed upon the provisions of Section 4, Suits Valuation (United Provinces Amendment) Act No. VII [7] of 1939. That section lays down that certai...
State Through Labour Inspector Vs. M.N. Mehrotra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1951
Reported in: AIR1951All623
ORDERDesai, J.1. This is a reference by the Ses. J. of Allahabad recommending that the proceedings pending against the appcts. under Rule 81 (4), Defence of India Rules & various Ordinances be quashed as having abated. There is a similar reference made by the learned Ses. J. in respect of proceedings pending against another set of persons in or. Ref. No. 31 of 1950. The facts of the two references are common & they are being disposed of together. 2. The appcts. in the present reference are the managing director & other officers of the Central Bank of India, Ltd. while those in the other reference are the managing directors & other officers of the Hindustan Commercial Bank, Ltd. 3. On 12-10-1946, the Governor of U. P. in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 81-A, Defence of India Rules, referred certain disputes existing between banks, including the Central Bank of India, Ltd. & the Hindustan Commercial Bank, Ltd., & their employees, for adjudication to the late Shri. B. B. Singh, t...
Dharni Dhar and ors. Vs. Chandra Shekhar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1951
Reported in: AIR1951All774
Wall Ullah, J.1. I agree to the order proposed to be passed in this appeal. I, however, wish to deal with the main question of law which has been discussed in this case.2. The main question of law which calls for decision in this case is whether the rule laid down in the English case, Merryweather v. Nixon, (1799) 8 T. R. 186: 16 R. R. 810 : 101 E. R. 1337, applies to India. On this question, there is a serious conflict of judicial opinion in India. There is a serious conflict of opinion even in this Court. This is the principal reason for reference of this case to a Full Bench.3. The case of Merryweather v. Nixon was decided by the King's Bench in 1799 by Lord Kenyon, C. J. It was a Court of Common Law as distinct from a Court of Equity. It was an action based upon an implied 'assumpsit' on these facts. The plaintiff and the defendant had destroyed the machinery and injured the mill of a millowner. The mill owner brought an action 'on the case' against both of them. Having recovered 8...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›